Fujifilm HS50 EXR has arrived ! (1 Viewer)

[kNikS]

Hi Roy,

I only shoot in raw and have the noise reduction set at zero which I believe is none. I have just been out and shot about 100 photos's of birds on feeders at about 15ft. Virtually all are soft. NOT impressed at all and most likely will be returning it.

I think the AF is not quite as good as they make out, as I had lots of trouble trying to get focus this afternoon on a bullfinch which should of been totally straight forward, but it just would not af until I moved away and tried to re focus again.

I know I had to pump my old SX40 when the contrast was poor, but this boy should be nailing it.

I better go and read the returns policy. Will post a few photo's later with no sharpening for every one to see.

I will try tomorrow in JPG fine and see if that is any better.

punta, I don't own this camera but from what I understand you should set noise reduction to -2 to turn it off.

 

[punta]

punta, I don't own this camera but from what I understand you should set noise reduction to -2 to turn it off.

Thanks, I have now set it to -2 :t:

 

[kennethwfd]

I was going to add that the three settings of noise reduction are standard (zero, default setting) high +2,which if it is the cause would make matters worse, or low -2.

I am having the same problem - my shots look fine in camera, but come out soft on the computer. When I photographed the robin I thought "yes, I've cracked it" as it looked tack sharp.

that the camera can take excellent shots can be seen by

http://www.flickr.com/photos/macfudge/8617251118/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8613850723/in/photostream/

settings or technique?? Or expecting too much in poor light, although the sun was out for Punta's

If either EB or molly reads this, can you confirm whether you shoot RAW or JPEG? Punta and I have shot RAW, and I am questioning whether the problem does lie in the conversion software because I had these same issues with the HS20. Was I wrong to blame the tiny viewfinder?

 

[punta]

I was going to add that the tree settings of noise reduction are standard (zero, default setting) high +2,which if it is the cause would make matters worse, or low -2.

I am having the same problem - my shots look fine in camera, but come out soft on the computer. When I photographed the robin I thought "yes, I've cracked it" as it looked tack sharp.

that the camera can take excellent shots can be seen by

http://www.flickr.com/photos/macfudge/8617251118/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8613850723/in/photostream/

settings or technique?? Or expecting too much in poor light, although the sun was out for Punta's

I mentioned this about the EVF before. It does not resemble what you are looking at through your own eyes compared to what you see through the EVF.

Cant really explain it very well :-O

 

[kennethwfd]

what I am commenting on is that I always run through my pics on the LCD, whatever camera I am using to delete any obvious duds. am going to try JPEG tomorrow because I've just found this online

Copied from site :-Why I ask for software

To perform batch conversion of many existing .raf files to .jpg.
Why I want Fujifilm's algorithm, specifically

I have tried Lightroom and Silkypix, and both fail to give usable results when converting from RAF to JPG. The results are shockingly hideous (as in, one would not expect this sort of thing from them), with blown out blue and extreme loss of detail, not to mention that it's completely inaccurate color representation. Silkypix is not as bad as Adobe in that it has more detail, but its color representation is also off.

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/29785/what-software-raw-converter-can-convert-from-raf-to-jpg-replicating-the-fujif

 

[punta]

I have not even put any Fuji software on my pc.

I use faststone image viewer (free download) very quick to download the large raw files.

You can see all your photos in the viewer, it does offer editing if you want to. But what I do is crop in faststone and save as a TIFF file then I can open it in photoshop or lightroom no problem. I can even edit the tiff files in camera raw as well if i want to no problem.

Not sure what your problem is Kenneth. Remember what you see in the lcd screen is a jpg version of your shot not the raw photo. Roy told me that

 

[Roy C]

Remember what you see in the lcd screen is a jpg version of your shot not the raw photo. Roy told me that

Absolutely correct 'punta', with all digital Cameras (including DSLR's) when you shoot in RAW what you see on your Camera is just a jpeg representation of the RAW and not a true reflection of the RAW file.
The in camera preview has had all the usual jpeg processing done including sharpening, contrast, saturation ..... whereas when you open the RAW file you will find that the image looks flat as it is up to you to process the file as you see fit - this is why shooting in RAW is not for folk who do not want to do a lot of post processing.
In order to get your in camera preview to look more like the actual RAW file you need to reduce the in-camera sharpening, contrast and saturation. If you just leave these things alone at the Camera defaults then the likes of highlight will show clipping on the jpeg preview but when you open the RAW file there may not be any clipping at all.

 

[Keith Dickinson]

Another one from last night - this time a RAW file processed using Photoshop CS6 - the camera raw update supporting the HS50 is now available.

taken at about 10 foot, f8 1/45 iso 200 fl 71.00
I've blown the highlights as I wasn't paying attention, should have used exposure compensation.

 

[kennethwfd]

Not sure what your problem is Kenneth. Remember what you see in the lcd screen is a jpg version of your shot not the raw photo. Roy told me that

The JPEG version of my shot on the LCD = good
The converted image on my PC = bad (Roy told me that)

Two months ago I purchased a Fuji S5pro and the same process albeit with different software has produced excellent results & I've sold some of my work (that'll raise Mr Churchill's BP)

and that I can identify camera lenses and their focal lengths:-O:-O:-O

 

[earleybird]

I do not have this Camera but just about every bird shot I have seen taken with it looks fairly soft - almost looks as if the in-camera noise reduction is too aggressive and is killing any fine detail. Is there no way of turning-off or significantly reducing the noise reduction? (and then applying it selectively in post processing if needed).

I think you must be looking at the wrong images Roy. either that or the wrong camera .

I hope that you are not one of these DSLR users trying to compare a £400 bridge camera with a £1000+ DSLR camera The images in your photostream are very impressive indeed. !

If you can show me images from any other £400 bridge camera that are sharper and more detailed than the ones I have taken with my HS50 this past 2x weeks I would be interested to see them myself.
My HS50 images are shown on this thread and on the Flickr Group 'Fuji HS50 users Group' for comparison.

Don't forget that most of the bridge camera images are taken at 750-1000+mm hand held which is a lot more than any DSLR is likely to be used at, so there will naturally be some noise reduction necessary to compensate for the camera shake.I turned the lens IS off as an experiment and was amazed how the image jumped all over the place like looking through a powerful pair of binoculars

 

[earleybird]

friendly robin who comes round when I visit this shed. actually looks better in the camera

nice image keith :t:. if he uses that perch frequently you could set up a nice twig for him to land on and clear the background a bit . You should get a nice Robin study quite easily.

I love Robins, they are so inquisitive and bold they are always a good photographic subject .Unlike the bloomin Male Blackcap I have been chasing for a couple of days now.!:C

 

[earleybird]

Another one from last night - this time a RAW file processed using Photoshop CS6 - the camera raw update supporting the HS50 is now available.

taken at about 10 foot, f8 1/45 iso 200 fl 71.00
I've blown the highlights as I wasn't paying attention, should have used exposure compensation.

we have been praying for nice weather for several weeks now due to the low light conditions, then when the sun does finally comes out it creates a whole new set of problems with harsh contrasts !

Its very exasperating . I gave up the other day because the light levels were just too extreme . i finally managed some reasonable images an hour or so before the sun went down.

With bird and wildlife photography I find there is often too little time to use ec . What mode are you using for your bird shots ?

 

[earleybird]

If either EB or molly reads this, can you confirm whether you shoot RAW or JPEG? Punta and I have shot RAW, and I am questioning whether the problem does lie in the conversion software because I had these same issues with the HS20. Was I wrong to blame the tiny viewfinder?

I think you are very brave shooting in raw with such a new camera . I have never shot a single image in raw in all the years I've been togging seriously.
...urmmm that would be 3x years lol :-O

To be honest I can see no advantage whatsoever in myself shooting raw. I take pictures for the sheer fun of it and I love the challenge especially with birds and wildlife.

I only upload some of my images to flickr or photobucket so that I can admire them and show them off to anyone that will look

If I needed to take raw images to PP selectively crop and blow my images up for photographs or posters etc to sell them then I would buy a £1000 DSLR with a £3000 lens :t: and spend a few years learning photography.

To be honest the images that I have taken this past 2x weeks with my HS50 have blown me away.

I have never done any kind of post production editing either ,on even a single photograph and I take 100's daily. Just a judicious bit of cropping and resizing is all.
If an image isn't up to standard it gets ruthlessly deleted or I would soon be buried in images.

One day I might try some PP but for now I am happy to spend all my time just taking pictures.:t:

Thank you for using one of my images to prove your point about the HS50's IQ I'm pleased as punch

 

[elkcub]

Well, I've joined the team. Primarily due to this dedicated thread I've ordered an HS50 plus a few accessories, which should arrive in a week or so. :t:

Many thanks,
Ed

 

[earleybird]

outstanding !:t:

what accessories have you ordered ? I ordered the Fuji R0-80A remote shutter release which is very useful to prevent camera shake.
I reverse put my LCD on the back of the camera so i can see it from a couple of feet away and set the camera up on a tripod pre-focused and sit back in a comfortable armchair waiting for something interesting to land on my feeder.

Its lazy togging but it means I can surf and read etc whilst waitng for a shot.:t:

Look forward to seeing your images

 

[kNikS]

I think you must be looking at the wrong images Roy. either that or the wrong camera .

I hope that you are not one of these DSLR users trying to compare a £400 bridge camera with a £1000+ DSLR camera The images in your photostream are very impressive indeed. !

If you can show me images from any other £400 bridge camera that are sharper and more detailed than the ones I have taken with my HS50 this past 2x weeks I would be interested to see them myself.
My HS50 images are shown on this thread and on the Flickr Group 'Fuji HS50 users Group' for comparison.

Don't forget that most of the bridge camera images are taken at 750-1000+mm hand held which is a lot more than any DSLR is likely to be used at, so there will naturally be some noise reduction necessary to compensate for the camera shake.I turned the lens IS off as an experiment and was amazed how the image jumped all over the place like looking through a powerful pair of binoculars

I really don't want this to deviate into a pi$$ing contest, but I think I can answer with some shots from various posters in SX50 thread (and I'm sure that Roy can easily back up this answer with a couple of his own)

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=421215&d=1356908497

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=419414&d=1355597416

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=424703&d=1358804169

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=424704&d=1358804188

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=428204&d=1360707784

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=424681&d=1358798585

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=424683&d=1358798601

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=430007&d=1361719700

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=430180&d=1361792376

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=430181&d=1361792392

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=431916&d=1362933730

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=431917&d=1362933756

Note the poor light on most of the photos; the last two of which are taken at ISO 1250 and 1600 respectively - that amount of noise I usually see on much lower ISO on photos taken with HS50.

I mean, I too was seriously interested in this camera but after seeing virtually all HS50 pics posted here and on dpreview, I decided to go for Canon. Don't get me wrong - I like many of the captures, but pixel for pixel IQ just isn't on the Canon level. Of course, I can easily understand that for documentary purposes and users who aren't really into pixel peeping and post processing, HS50 might be a better camera, with its fast autofocus and manual zoom. Anyway, looking forward to seeing new pics - good luck and hope you guys get used to it soon and prove me wrong :t:

 

[earleybird]

kNicks I appreciate your interest in having a debate between the Canon SX50 and the Fuji HS50 but this isn't the thread to have it in. Its a Fuji forum and a Fuji HS50 thread. Go start you own thread on the canon forum!

What is it with you people ? why are you always so intent on spoiling everybody elses fun eh ?
You see a popular thread on a particular bridge camera and although you do not use a HS50 yourself and have never taken a single picture with an HS50 you just can't help butting in with your uninformed ,unwanted 2x cents worth .?:C . Is it that you now feel that you have bought the wrong camera ?

However since you have posted I will answer your comments.

The images you posted are completely useless as a comparison.

1. There is no exif data available ,?
2. We do not know what part of the World they were taken in or the prevailing light conditions.?
3. We have no idea whether they were hand held or tripod?
4. We do not know the distance of the subject from the camera ? One shot looks like a captive bird at scarely 3x feet.

In order for there to be a meaningful direct comparison between any two cameras it is essential that the cameras involved take the same shot at the same time in the same conditions with the same subject and with identical settings . Any other comparison is completely worthless

 

[Roy C]

I think you must be looking at the wrong images Roy. either that or the wrong camera .

I hope that you are not one of these DSLR users trying to compare a £400 bridge camera with a £1000+ DSLR camera The images in your photostream are very impressive indeed. !

I bought a little SX40 almost a year ago and have recently upgraded to the SX50 (BTW both were significantly less that £300).
In answer to your question NO I am not trying to compare a DSLR set-up with little bridge Cameras.
Not had any time with the SX50 yet but here are a few taken with the SX40 (all handheld at the full optical zoom). OK they are certainly not up to DSLR standards but not too bad considering the tiny sensor. I also have loads of reasonable shots taken with the SX40 and digital converters.
This is not the thread to compare superzooms but since you appear to think that I have not got any experience with these little superzooms (and therefore no right to comment) I must put the records straight. On paper the more expensive HS50 should be producing a lot better images than ,say, the SX40 but I am just not seeing it in this thread, sorry!

 

[earleybird]

Roy I think I can speak for most on this thread and say your posts are always welcome here .
I had a quick look through some of your images last night and will return some time today but I hadn't realised that you also use a superzoom bridge camera.

that makes some of your shots all the more remarkable.

However I still don't think that there is any reason for anyone to make comparisons between DSLR and bridge cameras or bridge to bridge on solely image quality like it is the be all and end all. It certainly isn't for me anyway.

Every togger needs to make informed judgements about what they want to achieve with their photography and it isn't always just about IQ.

I am more than satisfied to view my images on my monitor and upload cropped and resized images to web hosts to be viewed at that level. I am not the slightest bit interested in 100% pixel peeping or any other such nonsense.

I am more interested in fast start up times , fast and accurate auto focusing, fast read write times and fast shot to shot times which is the criteria upon which I bought my Fuji HS50.

I am more than satisfied with the IQ of the shots I have taken so far but they have all been through double glazing on overcast days so far. Today I am going to take some shots without glass and see if there is any noticable difference

 

[Roy C]

Roy I think I can speak for most on this thread and say your posts are always welcome here .
I had a quick look through some of your images last night and will return some time today but I hadn't realised that you also use a superzoom bridge camera.

that makes some of your shots all the more remarkable.

Hi 'earlybird' thank you for your comments on my photostream - what you may not realise is that just about all my latest shots on there have been taken using a sub £300 600mm astro telescope as a prime lens attached directly to a DSLR. I use the combo with a 1.4x tc giving 840mm (1344mm FOV on the 7D)For distant shots the results are remarkable for the money and a lot better than any little superzoom that's for sure - although astroscoping is a different ball game altogether compared with the little lightweight walkaround's but might interest some folks who want a long focal length on a DSLR with paying £5000 + for the lens (for info I do not even own a DSLR birding lens these days).

The HS50 interest me a lot with its phase AF in particular and if I thought it would deliver the IQ I am looking for I would buy one in an heartbeat, but up to now I am not seeing the sharpness and fine feather detail that I am looking for - I cannot help but think that maybe this is just user's error which is why I mentioned about the noise reduction settings a while back.
At the end of the day if you are satisfied with the Camera then that is all that matters.
Keep snapping and enjoy your photography :t: